Is Coke on Crack?
Is Coke on Crack?
Production workers and delivery drivers for Coca-Cola Enterprises can’t afford higher health care costs on their salaries but that’s what Coke is asking them to do. Over 2,000 workers — 400 in Connecticut and 1,700 in Los Angeles — are on strike. Union leaders say the workers have been arguing with management over health care costs since last fall. David White of Teamsters Brewery & Soft Drink Conference says:
These are folks that live paycheck to paycheck, many of them. They’re not well-to-do people. And you have the company giving out huge consulting contracts and lifetime health care coverage for departing executives and that doesn’t seem to bother them.
What makes it even worse is that the current CEO, E. Neville Isdell, got over $17 million in compensation in 2004. Even as excessive compensation goes, this is pretty bad: well above the average $9 million in compensation given to CEOs in 2004. Indeed, it seems that Coke has a tradition of bending over backwards to help out the guys at the top:
As part of his severance agreement, Coca-Cola’s former chairman of the board and CEO, M. Douglas Ivester, received a six-year consulting agreement worth $675,000, office space, furniture, supplies, a company car, home security service and club dues. In total, Ivester’s retirement package was reportedly worth $119 million.
Coke got a bit of bad press in late 2003 and early 2004 because — as one generous journalist put it: “Coca-Cola’s human resources staff was so busy with layoffs and restructuring this year that the company didn’t meet its diversity goals.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I never liked Coke anyway.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:57 pmSo George Bush is our “CEO President”. Remember when he ran in 2000 as the MBA President.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:01 pmThe purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits. If the workers are not happy, they can strike. The corporation may decide to sweeten the pot a bit, or perhaps not.
Either way, there is nothing evil here. The corporations have an obligation to their stockholders to maximize return.
I get the feeling that most of you think the purpose of a company is to provide jobs and health care to people.
No. That’s the responsibility of the worker, to provide income and health care to himself and his family. If he is worth more than he is being paid, he needs to look elsewhere.
If he can’t find other work, perhaps he isn’t really worth more. Then he can just be a progressive and spend his days commenting on blogs about how unfair the world is, instead of trying to improve his own plight.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:06 pmRaise your hand if you think buckshot needs to look “elsewhere.”
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:13 pmSuch arrogance, Buckshot. You haven’t a clue.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:24 pmIs Coke “exploiting” its employees? Well, since Coke is not forcing anybody to work for them, the answer is NO. If a worker feels he isn’t getting enough pay or benefits, he can try to find a better job.
Coke can pay its employees as much or as little as it wants. As long as they are not threatening peoples life, liberty or property, no one is getting harmed/exploited.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:26 pmTony,
Thank you. I was starting to think everyone here believes it is the duty of government to control every single aspect of business, and thus, our lives.
We know how efficient government is. Thus, the need for capitalism. Capitalism and profits. It’s like mother’s milk to all of us, even those who hate to admit it. (even as they suckle)
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:36 pmIf a Coke worker feels he or she isn’t getting enough pay or benefits, he or she can strike.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:37 pmbuckshot – You’re right. Socialism can only run if there are capitalistic (productive) businesses and people to tax in order to feed the redistribution engine.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:42 pmThe post is not about whether a company owes its employees healthcare. this is about a company that is reducing benefits that it has provided to its employees, but still paying gigantic sums of money to its top executives. I wonder how many employees that 6 million would keep in healthcare? Also Tony/Buckshot please don’t reply to your own posts. It only makes you look stupider then you are.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:48 pmKrazny- What do you propose to fix the situation? A cap on CEO pay?
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:56 pmWhen I read buckshot saying: “We know how efficient government is”. Then I know he’s not living in this world., and has no clue to the plight of the working man. It’s not always as easy as quitting your job and finding a new one.
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:14 pmTodd, same question to you: what do you propose to “fix” the situation?
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:18 pmCoke is da bomb!
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:47 pmjust to piss of Tony/buckshot lets try communism. =P
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:04 pmTony, make corporations more responsible with their “promises” when hiring potential employees. Put a “paycap” on CEO severence paychecks, especially if they have not contributed to the success if the corporation. (Does Enron, World-Com ring a bell? I’m sure there’s few more out there) and maybe we should really look at lowering the costs of health insurance….we are the most expensive in the world after all. If employees had a little more money in their pockets, then maybe they would be spending a bit more out there to keep the wheels of the economy moving, and not having to go on strike….it’s not cheap living in America anymore…unless you are a trust-fund child or something similar.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:07 pman employee has a responsibility when they accept a job to work hard, to fulfill there job requirements, and to make themselves a valuable asset to a company. I believe that a company has an ethical responsibilty to its employees. Many of the issues in todays work world stems from a companies not wanting to treat there employees well, and the employees reacting accordingly
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 pmTony and Buckshot. Both of you are right to a degree, however, overall you’re both wrong to the point that you’re bordering on ignorant. Yes, it is a company’s purpose to make a profit (capitalism 101), and No it’s not a company’s purpose to provide jobs and healthcare to their employees. This is not the case in this situation. When a company hires an employee they both enter into an agreement “I’ll do your job for this amount of money/benefits”. This is a case of the company backing out on their part of the bargain. I, also, don’t believe that the government should have a hand in business, but I think the corporations in our country should start being held accountable for their agreements with employees just the way they are their agreements with other companies. If the company commits to a pension plan or healthcare benefits that they can’t sustain, they need to take the hit right in their profits and renegotiate the agreement with their employees. After all, if their making these sorts of “bush league” mistakes it’s time they went bankrupt trying to live up to their commitments instead of hiding behing corporate BS and screwing their employees.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 pmTodd- every solution you mention infringes on individual liberty.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:30 pmGreg,
You seem to be speaking of hypotheticals, “if a company commits to a pension plan or health care benefit”…..
I didn’t see any such thing in the thread. Are you making such things up as you go along? When armchair quarterbacks and government officials start dediding how much a company has to pay in wages/benefits, the economy will grind to a halt.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:52 pmstill missing the point Tony/Buckshot. This company is giving millions of dollars to current and former executives while reducing the amounts to its rank and file. Instead of giving millions to a former CEO why not use that money to pay for a slight increas in healthcare or some other benefit?
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:55 pmBuckshot…don’t confuse hypotheticals and generalities. Hypotheticals don’t exist, generalities do. The Enron employees, WorldCom employees, and United Airlines employees (the short quick list) who just got screwed would probably love a shot at you and this topic. The government hasn’t decided in my scenario, the company has still decided the pay/benefits package. If the company can’t afford to live up to what they’ve promised the employee, they need to pay it anyway and go bankrupt doing it. Maybe you can get your mind around this analogy…..I have commited to my lender to pay an amount of money on my mortgage, based on your theory when interest rates go up I should be able to call my lender and say “well, I really can’t afford to pay you the new higher payment, it’s hurting my profitability. So I’m just not gonna pay it.”….as if!
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:03 pmbuckshot….based on your theory, when interest rates go up I can refuse to pay the new higher mortgage payment because it hurts my profitability. Cool, I can’t wait. Also, this entire thread is about Healthcare benefits…maybe you should have your mom read it to you again.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:07 pmCorporate Gimmicks 101
Because we have some regulars who love to swallow everything fed them we’ll backtrack slightly to get everyone up to speed. It is the duty of a corporation to act as if this quarter is great, next quarter is going to be even better, whether or not it is true.
It is the duty of the Corporate Board to return as much money to the upper management as is insanely possible (without getting caught & going to jail) while stiffing your regular employees so that they can end up paying for the new executive raises.
Corporate Politics. It is the duty of every corporation to insist that the only way they can scratch out any money what so ever, is to throw out any rules and regulations reguarding how business is transacted.
An important corralary to Corporate Politics is to fool enough rubes into thinking that one day the riches of upper management will one day be theirs so that they continue to vote republican. Even though the last thing you want to do is have that rube in your meetings or god forbid at your country club.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:33 pmThe anger here should be directed at the union for negotiating a raw deal for the workers. Unions are interested in 1) survival of the union, and then 2) negotiating on behalf of the workers.
So unions often sell their workers down the river in order to survive, then they villainize the evil company that supports them all.
If the company isn’t offering enough, then strike. Play the waiting game, and they’ll either agree to your terms or the won’t.
There is no mystery here. Well, not for some of us. It doesn’t appear that some progressives even understand the relation ship of a union to it’s workers, or a company to it’s employees.
Fortunately, most of you stayed home on election day.
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:42 pmI wont comment on Tony and Buckshot as they refuse to get the pyschiatric help they desperately need.
As a big fan of The Donald I must say I agree with his choice to be his newest apprentice.
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:45 pmTana lost her opportunity soley because she treated her “employees” like garbage.
Kendra on the other hand appreciated her workers and will ultimately reap great rewards.
Decency pays!
The idea that corporations are beholden only to shareholders is common right-wing cant. But it’s bullshit.
Corporations are synthetic individuals that are created and continue to exist only according to the will of the government — that is, with our say-so. Most corporate charters specifically state that the charter is issued *for the public good.*
Our Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of corporations. Jefferson pushed hard to have them banned entirely in the Bill of Rights. He lost that battle only at the very last minute. Even so, corporate charters were only granted for 20 years at at time up until well after the Civil War. Everybody knew that issuing those charters was playing with fire, and that the survival of the republic demanded that these creatures be kept under constant, careful watch.
So, no, corporations don’t have carte blanche to abuse or cheat their employees, or lie to them, or break trust, or pollute the environment, or even to buy our politicians. The fact that they do these things and get away with them is a perversion of the understandings under which these charters were issued by American and European governments for three centuries before the last one.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:17 pmNow, about health care:
Health care is a basic human right. Nobody should die, as my father did, because they can’t afford to see a doctor. No other civilized nation in the world leaves its working classes twisting in the breeze like we do.
I’m Gone At Last to a country where everybody gets cradle-to-grave health care. Let me tell you how this changes everything:
Business loves it, because they’re not having to pay huge fees for coverage (GM estimates they pay over $1500 per car sold for employee health care — how many more people could afford cars if that went away?). With this benefit covered, it doesn’t cost them nearly as much to create new jobs.
Doctors love dealing with ONE payer, which leaves them time to see many more patients — and play more golf besides. (American doctors get to file their bills one of over 1500 separate plans. My US GP worked 70 hours/week, about a third of which was spent fighting with insurance companies to get her patients needed treatment. My new GP works 35 hours/week, and fights with no one.)
There are many, many more family-owned businesses here. That’s because it’s easy to get a little cash ahead, quit your corporate job, and set up your own shop when you’re not wondering how you’re going to buy insurance for your family — or terrified that one bad illness will wipe you out. What would you do differently with your life if you never had to worry about your health coverage?
Most of all, though, this is a national security issue. My new country has stopped three major epidemics in their tracks in the last 18 months. They could act so quickly because people here go see doctors as soon as they don’t feel well. Because of this, epidemic patterns emerge very quickly, and public health officials can get right on top of stopping them while they’re still localized.
In the States, 45 million people are wandering around without insurance. If a flu emerges in this group, nobody will know for many, many days. The victims will eventually show up in an ER somewhere, almost dead, and possibly having infected hundreds or thousands of others in the meantime. By the time the pattern emerges, a couple weeks could have passed. Millions will be carrying the disease. And millions may die.
Not having national health care makes us a sitting duck for a bioweapons attack. Any sensible homeland security plan would have implemented this as the very first thing.
Finally, the US *does* have socialized medicine. If you’re over 65, disabled, a poor child, or a veteran, you get free care. The systems that deliver this care are all vastly cheaper than any HMO in the country. (The rest of us pay more than anyone else in the world.)
Both the government and business stand to reap tremendous financial rewards from a single-payer system. The only argument for keeping it is that people like Frist have gotten addicted to making profit on other people’s misfortune.
I’d get into the deep immorality of that, but I’m sure I’ve run out of room. Suffice to say that there’s nothing about our current healthcare policies that make any sense, not even if you’re a free marketeer.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:39 pmDeraillment by ‘little Cokk’ buckshot, notwithstanding, the boycott of Coke continues. Two major crimes committed by the company left unmentioned is the supporting of rightwing union busters (and murderers) in Colombia, and the pumping out of Kerala, India’s water table, forcing every farmer to deepen their well at their own cost.
Coke SUCKS. As for ‘alternatives,’ be aware that Dr. Pepper and 7-Up both belong to Carlylse (Bush sr.’s company).
KILLER COKE
May 24th, 2005 at 1:41 amKILLER COKE
May 24th, 2005 at 1:42 amKILLER COKE = http://www.killercoke.org/
May 24th, 2005 at 1:43 amGone at Last-
If people have a “right” to healthcare, what *exact* dollar amount to they have a right to? If a person is really sick and they require $1000/day worth of care to live, do they have a right to that much $$? What if the amount required was $1,000,000/day?
Also, what exact date in history did health care become a human right?
What if there was a worldwide economic collapse and everyone was left dirt poor? Would people still have a right to health care, even though it couldn’t be paid for?
May 24th, 2005 at 9:27 amThe exact date is December 10, 1948 — the day that the UN Charter of Human Rights was adopted. The US was the driving force behind its creation, and was the first signatory. Article 25.1 of the Charter states that people have a right to an “adequate standard of living,” including “food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”
As for your first question: no country, including mine, guarantees that it will cover heroic interventions for hopeless cases. The needs must be balanced against the limits of the public purse; and many people here carry a little extra private insurance to cover catastrophic care.
But overall, most people get most of what they need — and don’t bankrupt themselves getting it. As with the VA system in the states (which delivers consistently top-notch care, even thought it’s one of the rock-bottom lowest-cost providers in the country), having one ministry that controls and coordinates all the resources adds quite a bit of efficiency, and reduces costs considerably. Overall, everybody gets MUCH better care — for free — than even the moderately wealthy get in the U.S.
The difference this makes in the general quality of life for the entire society is striking. ‘
Of course, if you’re going to afford a thing like this, you can’t be throwing half the country’s tax revenue away on things like soldiers and wars. It seems to be an either-or situation.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:34 amSo you only have a right to health care if there is enough tax money to pay for it? That means that it isn’t a right at all, since it is 100% dependent on the existence of tax money (taken by violating the rights of others).
Contrast that with rights to life, liberty, and property, which have existed forever, exist without any tax money to pay for them, and which do not infringe on the rights of others.
Can a majority of Canadians vote to make cell phones a right? Christmas turkeys? Christmas trees? Sounds like tyranny to me, since those “rights” can only exist by violating the rights of others.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:51 pmGone at last,
You are ignoring Tony’s valid questions.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:10 pmI am not convinced the “right” to Liberty and Property have always “existed forever,” as you so cavalierly say…
May 24th, 2005 at 2:23 pmSt Jimmy- I said nothing about the pursuit of happiness. Give an example of my and your conflicting rights to life, liberty, and property, and we can discuss.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:59 pmSure, Tony. The right to food only exists if there’s enough tax money to pay for it.
The right to shelter only exists if there’s enough tax money to pay for it.
The right to liberty only exists of there’s enough tax money to pay for it.
Have it your way — but paying taxes (and I’ll bet I pay a hell of lot more of them than you do — though not so many as I once did, thanks to your right-wing friends) is the price we pay for living in ANY kind of civilized society.
If you don’t want to pay it, you’re welcome to go live out in the bush somewhere.
But don’t expect us to send a taxpayer-funded search and rescue team out to look for you.
May 24th, 2005 at 5:43 pmOh, and one more thing. I got a hoot out of this one:
“Contrast that with rights to life, liberty, and property, which have existed forever, exist without any tax money to pay for them, and which do not infringe on the rights of others.”
The right to liberty, as everyone from Jefferson to y’all’s “Support The Troops” yahoos reminds us, is very costly indeed. My ancestors paid for this one in blood, and I will thank you not to desecrate their memories by saying their efforts were without value.
As for the right to property: No, you don’t have a right to property. You have to pay for it, like everyone else does.
This right only exists where the rule of law is available to enforce it. (Ask any Palestinian, or Native American, for that matter, just how far they trust this so-called free “right” of yours.) I only have property as long as there are deeds and courts and cops to protect it. I only have *liveable* property as long as the public water and gas and sewer lines remain intact.
All that takes tax money.
My husband and I have written tax checks that ran into the seven figures. If I’m not whining about this, you certainly have no right to.
May 24th, 2005 at 5:54 pmTony / buckshot:
Do people have a right to liberty if they are in prison? How about if they live in a dictatorship? How about if they’ve been imprisoned without charges and are being held without access to counsel and without any prospect of a trial?
You can build hypotheticals that demonstrate it’s not possible to give everyone everything they have a right to — but I can do that to. If the Chinese have a right to liberty, how come we aren’t invading China? Because it’s impractical to do so — now. Health care is expensive (although it’s incredibly more expensive in the US than in Canada or France, for a couple of examples) and therefore cannot be used heroically in all cases. There are certainly economic conditions which change the definitions of “heroically” and “all cases”.
So what? Something being a “right” doesn’t mean everyone gets it — it means everyone should get it, and in a perfect world, everyone would get it.
For example, I suggest that intelligence is every human’s right. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the world (some right here on this board) that don’t have it, won’t get it, and will never miss it.
May 24th, 2005 at 6:09 pmGone at last,
You still didn’t address Tony’s very valid question.
Lots of diversion, no substance.
May 24th, 2005 at 8:00 pmOkay, let’s posit this. You and I own adjoining property. Yours is on the top side of an extended slope; mine is below. You are excessively liberal (lol) with your use of pesticides. So much so in fact, that it is trickling downhill into my property and contaminating my water, putting my family and I in peril. When I broach the subject with you, you say tough luck, as you have no intention of stopping your pesticide use, and the containment costs would be prohibitively expensive for you. As THE wealthly landowner in the district, you hold all the cards economically and politically; I could beggar myself in such a conflict and still not gain and equitable outcome for myself. Do I then invoke the Iraqi Doctrine of Pre-emption?
Sounds silly, this, but I’ll bet this sort of shit, or variations of it, go on all the time. I’m certain both of us could think of any number of applicable situations if we wished to.
Of course you said nothing about the pursuit of happiness; however “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is, I believe, from the Constitution, a document which you are rather fond of referring to. That’s why I parenthesized that part of my comment and added an a.k.a., in order to draw a parallel between happiness and your oft-stated views on money and property. I was suggesting that for you, money and property are your pursuit of happiness. That is a fair assessment, is it not? Correct me please if I am in error, for that certainly is the impression you tend to give (not that there is anything wrong with it) :D
May 24th, 2005 at 9:13 pmSt. Jimmy, good story. I think that the wealthy and powerful land owner is an asshole and if he has a hand in whether or not justice is served here, a revolt (or insurgency if you like) is in order. Frontier justice if you will.
May 24th, 2005 at 10:17 pmJay
YEEHAAAWWWW!!!
May 24th, 2005 at 11:04 pmUm, which question was that? Pardon me for not putting my hand into the troll slime and trying to pull one out.
I answered him on the exact date that health care became a right. And I engaged him on the need to balance rights with reality. Other than that, I don’t recall any questions.
On the other hand, neither Tony nor you have engaged a damn thing I’ve said. Which I take as a tacit admission of the fact that you know you’re licked, and have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say.
May 25th, 2005 at 12:49 amAnother reason to drink Pepsi. Use Coke to clean your toilets. . .it works!
May 25th, 2005 at 9:16 amAnd getting back to corporations, it makes sense to pay your rank and file a living wage, as well as providing healthcare. As a business owner, where are your priorities? The bottom line, of course. Doesn’t it take money to make money? Well, if you’re out to get the most out of your employees, doesn’t it make sense to remove as much worry from their heads as possible? By not worrying about affording to take the kids to the doctor, (and while we’re at it, daycare) you “free their minds” to doing what’s important: their job! Taking care of your employees is bound to increase their productivity, since they won’t be calling in sick for reasons other than being sick. Some corporations in CA even provide the equivalent of a mall in their office buildings. That way, employees don’t have to leave the building to get what they need. Save time, increase productivity, and in the long run, make more money.
May 25th, 2005 at 9:49 amSt Jimmy-
Thanks for the example. I am harming your property, so I would face legal action for using the pesticides. If a politician were to interfere and decree that I am not to be punished, the politician is in the wrong. Sound good?
May 25th, 2005 at 10:20 amSt Jimmy (again)- the pursuit of happiness has to do with liberty and not property. People should be free to make themselves happy, as long as they don’t infringe on the life or liberty of others. Property rights come out of liberty as well. If I produce something, that object should be protected from harm and theft.
May 25th, 2005 at 10:23 amGone at Last-
There is no right to food or shelter. I never said as such. The right to liberty exists for all people everywhere. Slaves had a right to be free, but that right was infringed by slaveowners.
Tax money is used to protect liberty, but the right itself exists regardless of if and how it is protected. Would you agree you have a right to sing along to the radio in your car? If a tyrant duct taped your mouth while driving, you still have that right, its just that it is being infringed.
I am not anti-tax, ***I just believe that taxes should only be used to protect life, liberty, and property rights, and nothing else***.
I never said freedom was free, either.
May 25th, 2005 at 10:31 amCranky Buffalo-
People are born with rights. They can do things (like commit crime) that make them loose their rights.
People in a dictatorship still have a right to liberty, its just that those rights are being infringed by the dictator.
If killing 1 innocent person due to collateral damage who happens to be near some bad guys will save 1000 innocent lives, would you agree that this can be acceptable?
May 25th, 2005 at 10:37 amGone at last,
You stated that health care is a right. It is not. Tony asked you what dollar amount of healthcare you have a “right” to.
Since you aren’t going to answer the question or address the point, let me just say that you have no more “right” to health care than you have a “right” to vote.
Neither are provided for you in the constitution. You may get free emergency room care – that is sort of a “right”, since they are forced to provide it to you.
When you get to the point where you are claiming that you are entitled to services provided by others who will be paid by tax dollars, you are entering the realm of entitlements. You may feel entitled. Those who are paying the bill may not share your enthusiasm for your feelilngs of entitlement.
The best thing a person can do is to focus on a healthy lifestyle, rather than counting on others to provide free insulin, free liver transplants, free stomach stapling, etc etc.
May 25th, 2005 at 1:51 pmTony
Yes, the politician is in the wrong. Yet my grievance remains unresolved and my family and I are still drinking pesticides. That doesn’t sound too good to me; we need to improve upon that.
If, as you suggested, the pursuit of happiness has to do with liberty rather than property, then that line from the Constitution would read “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Liberty”, and would be a redundancy. I agree completely with your statement that “People should be free to make themselves happy, as long as they don’t infringe on the life or liberty of others.” Unfortunately, we’re back in the same boat as before, as in all likelihood your ideas of happiness will differ to a greater or lesser extent with mine, and ultimately we would be at loggerheads with one another over any number of contentious issues, with each of us claiming, each with valid points in his favor, that the other is hindering his way.
I further agree that if you produce something, it should certainly be protected from harm or theft, yet what form would this protection take? If said protection is in any way tax-based, I would state (again, in the role of devil’s advocate), that I don’t want MY tax dollars being spent to protect YOUR property. In this instance, it would be my position that if you have property, you should not expect government largesse to safeguard it, as that is your personal responsibility. I would of course claim full confidence in my ability to protect my own property unaided, and would suggest that if you are unable to do likewise, it is not my obligation nor intent to provide you with assistance; you must sink or swim on your own.
I would like to express my thanks to you for your part in this enjoyable and civilized debate , and I look forward to a further exchanging of viewpoints. Perhaps we can set a trend in here.
May 25th, 2005 at 7:21 pm“I’d rather be happy than right any day!”
May 26th, 2005 at 7:44 am“And are you?”
“No. . .that’s about where it all falls apart, really.” -Douglas Adams The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
St Jimmy-
You’d still be drinking pesticides, but see how the problem is with the politician, and NOT the rich neighbor.
People can be happy without infringing a single iota on the liberties of others.
It is a paradox of freedom that one must give up some freedom (tax $) to be guaranteed that freedom. There must be a legal system to settle disputes over freedom. But courts, police, etc cost money. I argue that a tax system that is flat (still progressive) is the fairest way to get $ to protect freedom. That way those with little property pay less and those with more property pay more. It’s not perfect, but I think its the best we can do.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:57 amTony
I still see this as the rich neighbor (originally you in this example, but we’ll just call him rich neighbor from now on) continuing to pollute/infringe upon me. The politician has merely enabled the rich neighbor to continue to do so, and thus I am worse off then when I started, as my legal recourses have come to naught. Now, unless the rich neighbor voluntarily stops his excessive pesticide use, my family and I must spend our money to protect ourselves from his pollution, move, or continue to drink the stuff and wait for illness and death to strike. To date, the system has failed me and mine.
As to the property protection commentary, let us suppose that our self-protector is a wealthy billionaire businessman whose estate and person is protected by his own bodyguards/private police force. Could he not reasonably argue that his tax dollars should not go toward the protection of others and their property by citing the example of his own self-sufficiency?
My point is that everyone will never be in agreement as to exactly how our tax dollars should be spent. I know you are fond of referring to the Constitution, so I in my devil’s advocate role will suggest that the Constitution, while a marvellous document outlining essential human rights and noble ideals, is now almost 230 years old and is in need of some modernization in order to address adequately the issues and crises of our new age, problems which our founding fathers could not have, and did not, anticipate.
May 26th, 2005 at 2:14 pmSt. Jimmy- As for the pesticide problem, yes, the system has failed. But not because of the rich guy. Because of the politician.
As for the billionaire paying for all of his self protection, he is still under threat from nuclear attack. He needs a money to be coined. But even despite that, I admit that any tax system is not perfect, since people aren’t getting the exact utilitity per tax dollar paid.
But it is as good as we can get. And I believe the role of politics *should* be to argue over the best ways to protect life, liberty and property rights, and different ways to pay for protecting these rights.
What I am really fighting against is using tax money to pay for non-rights like health care, retirement, welfare, corporate bailouts.
These are not rights since they do not exist without tax $$. Life, liberty, and property rights exist even wo/tax $$. Its just that in order to protect those rights, we need $$.
I’m fine with updating the Constitution, as long as it is done through the amendment process. What changes do you have in mind?
May 26th, 2005 at 3:54 pmSt. Jimmy, I wish I could argue better to convince you about my “pesticide point”.
How about this: the rule of law is what punishes the pollutor. No matter how much money changes hands between any number of people, the rule of a just law is still supreme and effective *until* the law is changed. The politician is the one who is changing the law.
With just laws and without the politician, the rich guy has NO power over the poor guy. Only the existence of the bad politician gives the rich guy power.
May 30th, 2005 at 11:42 amAs for your next point, I believe, like you, that I have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than me. That’s why I donate time and money to charity and service.
It’s nice that you don’t mind that the tax system takes your money and helps people. But that same tax system forcibly takes money from people who don’t want to support the gov’ts version of the “charity”.
For example, do you support your tax money going to support abstinence education programs? I sure as heck don’t. I (and hopefully you) should consider this usage as tyrrany, as well as unconstitutional (See Article I, Section 8 for the short list of items Congress can tax and spend for).
Jesus was a great example of how people should be selfless and help their fellow man. And I applaud people who live that way, and I try to. But followers of Jesus do so out of their own free will. Jesus never advocated forcing non-followers to give up their possesions to give to the poor. Remember, Exodus: thou shalt not steal.
Private charity is the best way to justly and efficiently help the needy, because it is done 100% according to the will of the donors. Very different from the gov’t version which uses forced taxation.
Contrast Medicare/Medicaid which gives money to all sick people, with a private clinic/co-op system that gives money to all sick people who aren’t smokers. The private version encourages cost and life saving behavior, so that people who make healthy decisions get the money instead of people making self destructive decisions.
Who would you rather be the recipient of your generosity: a poor smoker or an equally poor non-smoker?
May 30th, 2005 at 12:01 pmTony
re the pesticide question I still maintain the “original sin” if you will was committed by the neighbor, with an eventual assist from the politician. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
If private charity (which I think is fantastic, of course) is the answer, then why do we still have so many in need? So far at least, it clearly isn’t enough. And do you honestly think that were the government suddenly to end all taxed-based assistance to the underpriviledged/disadvantaged/undeserving/deadbeat/ call-them-what-you-will, that donations to private charities from the well-to-do would increase correspondingly to help pick up the slack? From some, yes; from most, no bloody way. Greed is too big a motivator.
As to your smoker example, I would target the smoker first, through education and treatment, as he is clearly in more need of it. To abandon him entirely due to his addiction to a goverment-sanctioned, socially-approved and corporate-pimped poison is reprehensible. To suggest differently given the long history of tobacco industry subsidies and sin-tax revenues seems just too hypocritical to me. Corporations told him (through their advertisements) how cool and desirable smoking is, while government sat back and collected their tax money. Both knew and accepted that he was damaging himself, but the money-song was just too sweet. Or shouldn’t pushers be held accountable?
(For the record, I don’t smoke.)
This is sounding more like our pesticide example every moment…
May 31st, 2005 at 5:39 pmPut The Slime In The Coke Song
Lyrics By Franky Smales
Johnny got the slime from the ghostbustersmen
And tracy got the coke from the coke venderman
And he said his name was peter venkman.
(chorus twice)
Put the slime in the coke before the ghostbusters zap you
all Up
Then you will feel bad and race to the land and feel grand
(chorus)
Put the slime in the coke before the ghostbusters zap you all up
Then your name will be peter venkman the ghostbuster man
(chorus twice)
Put the slime in the coke before the ghostbusters zap you all up
When you all alone then you feel an chill down your bone
And you pick up the phone and see slime all the time and then you!
(chorus)
Put the slime in the coke before the ghostbusters zap you all up
You see the can and you turn into superman and race to the city and see peter venkman
(chorus twice)
Put the slime in the coke before the ghostbusters zap you all up
Then you feel bad and race to the land and feel grand
(chorus twice)
Big finish
Put the slime in the coke before the ghostbusters zap you all up
Zzzzzzzap
The end.
This Lyrics and all material is copywrited and owned by franky smales
2006 for vectra logan productions all rights reserved.
For comments e-mail me at my address is
September 19th, 2006 at 4:30 pmFrankieshanowskiy2k06@yahoo.com
Mortgage Interest Coverage
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:19 amPublic Employees Retirement Fund
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:32 amContinuing Care Retirement Communities
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pmJessie
Great post, very informative. Have learned a lot from your site.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pmNo Fax Payday Loan
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pmFaxless Payday Loans
Quick payday loans might support workers close to North Dakota dealing with astronomic payments, when members are looming a} spell of financial crisis.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 amScotty
I have seen many sites before and most of them do not look this good. I cannot wait to let my friends know about this site. Thanks for the excellent content.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:20 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pmAndre
Miracles occur naturally as expressions of love. The real miracle is the love that
April 13th, 2008 at 4:22 amAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 15th, 2009 at 12:22 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm